In Depth

After examining the few Indiana decisions on tumultuous conduct in the context of sufficiency of evidence to support a disorderly
conduct conviction, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a high school student's conviction for behavior involving the dean
of students. The high court also affirmed the student's battery conviction against the assistant principal.

In Christopher Bailey v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0812-CR-630, student Christopher Bailey appealed his battery
and disorderly conduct convictions stemming from an incident at his high school, claiming insufficient evidence. The Court
of Appeals agreed with Bailey and reversed his convictions, but the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to support both
convictions.

Assistant Principal Sarah Brewer told Bailey to pull up his pants during a morning breakfast service at the school; he refused
and was upset. Brewer extended her arm to prevent Bailey from walking away and Bailey pushed through her arm with his body
while keeping his hands at his side. Dean of Students Brian Knight saw this and came to confront Bailey about the situation.
Bailey threw down his drink and coat, stepped toward Knight, and began yelling obscenities at him. The township school officer
responded and Bailey backed away and left the cafeteria once he saw the officer. He was then arrested and convicted of Class
B misdemeanor battery for his conduct with Brewer and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct because of the incident with
the dean.

Although Bailey contended he didn't knowingly touch Brewer, in his testimony he conceded that although he didn't
touch her with his hands, he may have touched her with another part of his body, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. He
also admitted to being angry during the incident. The state proved a knowing touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner,
the justice wrote.

The high court didn't have much precedent when it came to Bailey's conviction of disorderly conduct, in which the
state had to prove he recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engaged in fighting or in tumultuous conduct. Bailey argued
his actions with the dean didn't rise to the statutory definition of tumultuous conduct. The justices turned to Whitley
v. State, 553 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), Gebherd v. State, 484 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), B.R.
v. State, 823 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), and N.J. ex rel. Jackson v. Metropolitan School District of Washington
Township, 879 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), for guidance on whether Bailey's actions support a disorderly conduct
conviction.

The Supreme Court determined Bailey's conduct was similar to B.R.'s, a student who approached another student in
anger and in the midst of a heated argument, pointed an open or unsheathed knife at the other student. The immediate danger
of serious bodily injury only ended when the other student hit B.R. and left.

In the instant case, Bailey threw down his drink and coat, which could have been interpreted as freeing up his arms to fight
with the dean, wrote the chief justice. In addition, he stepped toward the dean in an angry manner, with his fists clenched
and yelling obscenities within inches of Knight's face.

"The record indicates Bailey backed away from Dean Knight only upon seeing Officer Hunter. It was reasonable for the
trier of fact to conclude that, but for the officer's arrival, Bailey's conduct would have escalated," he wrote.

The trier of fact could reasonably infer that serious bodily injury would result had the police officer not arrived given
Bailey's anger in approaching the dean, throwing his coat and drink, his verbal tirade, and his clenched fists.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.